Iraq, Trustworthiness, and the FBI Investigation Make Bernie Sanders More Qualified Than Hillary Clinton

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA - APRIL 07: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) speaks during the AFL-CIO Convention at the Downtown Sheraton Philadelphia on April 7, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania primaries will be held on April 26. (Photo by William Thomas Cain/Getty Images)

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA – APRIL 07: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) speaks during the AFL-CIO Convention at the Downtown Sheraton Philadelphia on April 7, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania primaries will be held on April 26. (Photo by William Thomas Cain/Getty Images)

imagesizer

Bernie is going to the Vatican to give a speech 4 days prior to the most important primary so far, NY. Bernie is not receiving $225,000 for his speech and a transcript will be available.

04/08/2016 09:40 am ET | Updated Apr 08, 2016

Before addressing the differences in their Iraq votes and favorability ratings, Democrats should take a trip down memory lane and revisit the 2008 Democratic Primary. Now that Bill Clinton has displayed his true feelings towards Black Lives Matter, months after Southern states helped Hillary take an early lead, it’s important to remember that the Clintons utilized racism against Obama. In 2008, Bob Herbert wrote a New York Times piece titled Of Hope and Politics documenting Hillary Clinton’s use of race and Islamophobia:

I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama’s main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify, rather than further polarize, the country.

So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don’t need “false hopes,” and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

We’d already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot.

…He was drawing young people into the process and exciting people across party lines.
The big deal was that Senator Obama, defying every stereotype, was making it easier for people, frustrated by the status quo, to dare to hope and believe in the country again.

…Pride, the nuns told me in grammar school, goeth before a fall. It may not be fair that the Clintons seem to be forgiven every sin while Mr. Obama’s margin of error is tiny at best.

Indeed, Bernie’s “margin of error” this year is tiny, while Hillary Clinton expects to win the White House alongside a year-long FBI investigation.

Not long ago, as Mr. Herbert pointed out, Clinton even took “cheap shots” at Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr; another forgotten fact of her 2008 campaign. The former New York Senator did everything possible to portray Barack Obama as unrealistic, a closet Muslim (utilizing Fox News Islamophobia), and undermine Obama’s theme of hope and change.

Sound familiar?

Who’s drawing young people this election, offering hope and change, and appealing to the ideals of the average American?

It’s certainly not the person under FBI investigation. I explain in the following appearance on CNN New Day with Victor Blackwell that Hillary Clinton is able to get away with this style of politics, in part because of white privilege.

In terms of trying to crush hopes, dreams, and any genuine attempt at altering the status quo, Hillary Clinton is doing to Bernie Sanders what she and Bill tried to do against Barack Obama. The same complaints about tone (CNN reported “Bill Clinton complains about Obama’s attacks”) and attempts at vilifying Obama in 2008 are today being witnessed by Bernie Sanders. Ultimately, aside from the racism and Islamophobia, Hillary Clinton has used the same playbook against Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Hillary Clinton has always tried to embody pragmatism, despite the fact most Americans (67% of Americans, 30% of Democrats, 74% of Independents, and 64% of women according to Quinnipiac) find her “not honest and trustworthy.”

Hillary Clinton has negative favorability ratings nationally, with negative ratings in every major national poll, and this is before potential indictments from the Department of Justice.

In contrast, Quinnipiac writes “Sanders has the highest favorability rating of any candidate and the highest scores for honesty and integrity, for caring about voters’ needs and problems and for sharing voters’ values.”

Bernie’s interview with Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks highlights exactly why Sanders has the highest scores for honesty and integrity in 2016.

Experience, without trust, is worthless.

A resume, listing an ongoing FBI investigation, wouldn’t get you a job at McDonalds.

In terms of Iraq, Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War, using the same intelligence that Hillary Clinton used to vote for the tragic invasion. Also, her view of Iraq in 2004 speaks volumes. A CNN piece in 2004 titled Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote highlights her thoughts of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there…

“Obviously, I’ve thought about that a lot in the months since,” she said. “No, I don’t regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”

“The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration,” she said. “It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

Interestingly, Bernie Sanders vehemently opposed the Iraq War, even though “the consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

To all the revisionists who’d vote for Clinton, knowing that Bush’s neoconservatives might advise her if she wins, Clinton stated “No, I don’t regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction.”

Clinton, like Dick Cheney, utilized the weapons of mass destruction defense.

In fact, Hillary Clinton used the same myths perpetuated by the Bush administration to justify her vote. A 2007 New York Times piece titled Hillary’s War explains how Clinton helped perpetuate the myth of Saddam Hussein being linked to Al Qaeda:

…Clinton continued, accusing Iraq’s leader of giving ‘’aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.’’ This statement fit squarely within the ominous warning she issued the day after Sept. 11.

Clinton’s linking of Iraq’s leader and Al Qaeda, however, was unsupported by the conclusions of the N.I.E. and other secret intelligence reports that were available to senators before the vote…

Nevertheless, on the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration…

Yes, Hillary Clinton adopted Bush’s talking point and continued to perpetuate this myth.

As stated in the 2007 New York Times piece, “Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration.”

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, voted against the Iraq War, and possessed enough wisdom and foreign policy knowledge to foreshadow every deadly consequence of the invasion.

Experience must correlate to wisdom and good judgement, if qualifications warrant becoming the most powerful person on the planet.

Wisdom and judgement certainly aren’t the hallmarks of Hillary Clinton’s email controversy. The ongoing FBI investigation is highlight by The Hill in a piece titled Report: FBI moves to interview Clinton over emails :

Hillary Clinton and her top aides might be questioned by FBI officials about her private email server within the next few days, according to a new report from Al Jazeera America.

The news outlet reported that the FBI has concluded its examination of Clinton’s email server and is in a “critical stage” of its investigation into concerns that the former secretary of State or her top aides mishandled classified information.

Since when was it ever a good idea to vote for a candidate being interviewed by the FBI?

I explain in this appearance on CNN International that Hillary Clinton faces the risk of indictment by the FBI. Also, I highlight in this YouTube segment why basic logic dictates Clinton “knowingly” sent and received classified intelligence from her private server. Thus, Bernie Sanders is infinitely more qualified to become president than Hillary Clinton, primarily because he voted against Iraq and isn’t linked to any FBI investigations. Most importantly, the American people trust Bernie Sanders, and he’s earned this trust while his opponent relies solely on the aura of political power to justify her candidacy.

Remember, Bernie Sanders beats Trump by a much wider margin than Clinton, and that’s all that counts in 2016.

Follow H. A. Goodman on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

Bernie Sanders’ Legacy: The Left may no longer need the rich

bernie-sanders-undemocratic-plan-primary

FILE — Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders greets supporters during a walk throughout City Center in Philadelphia, April 26, 2016. Sander’s success with working class voters in the primary race so far may mean the progressive left of the party may no longer need rich liberals, who tend to support Hillary Clinton, to compete nationally. (Mark Makela/The New York Times)

News By Nate Cohn – The New York Times

When Bernie Sanders started gaining in the polls, it was easy to place him in a long line of idealistic insurgents like Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley or Jerry Brown.

They built strong bases of support among white liberal voters, excelling in places like Boulder, Colo., and Vermont, but their chances of being nominated hinged on building a broader coalition that included nonwhite voters. Only Mr. Obama managed it.

Mr. Sanders, despite his success in Indiana this week, has effectively lost the Democratic nomination, and for a familiar reason: He didn’t do well enough among black voters. But he gained the enthusiasm of a subtly different — and potentially larger — coalition than his liberal predecessors.

His brand of progressivism played far better among white working-class voters than that of past liberal outsiders. At the same time, he fared far worse among the affluent Democrats who represented the core of Mr. Obama and Mr. Bradley’s coalitions.

Mr. Sanders’s weakness among affluent Democrats and his strength among working-class Democrats might seem unsurprising, given his class-focused message. Mr. Sanders himself anticipated it in an interview with The Upshot in July.

But in broader historical terms, it might be something of a turning point in Democratic politics: the moment when the party’s left no longer needs an alliance with wealthy liberals to compete in national elections.

Connecticut, which held its primary April 26, vividly illustrates the huge difference between Mr. Sanders’s coalition and that of past liberal challengers.

Related Coverage

FIRST DRAFT

Bernie Sanders, Shifting Tone, Takes On Democratic Party APRIL 28, 2016

Bernie Sanders to Cut Hundreds of Staff Members and Focus on California APRIL 27, 2016

In 2000, a flagging Mr. Bradley lost the state by 13 percentage points to Al Gore. He lost badly among nonwhite voters — losing cities like Bridgeport and Hartford by more than 40 points. He lost by more modest margins in the rural, white, working-class eastern part of the state. But he won many of the state’s affluent areas — like Greenwich and New Canaan, along with much of the traditionally liberal western and northwestern part of the state near the border with New York and Massachusetts.

Mr. Obama won almost all of the same areas in 2008, but then added strong support from nonwhite voters — enough to give him a narrow victory over Mrs. Clinton in the state. He won places like Bridgeport and Hartford, even as he fared similarly to Mr. Bradley in places like Greenwich and New Canaan. He fared little or no better in the white, working-class parts of eastern and central Connecticut.

The Sanders-Clinton race reversed this map. Mrs. Clinton lost almost all of the white, working-class areas of rural eastern Connecticut to Mr. Sanders, even though she had won most of it in 2008, as Mr. Gore had in 2000. But she beat Mr. Sanders by huge margins in the affluent parts of western Connecticut where Mr. Obama and Mr. Bradley fared well. She won back the nonwhite voters she lost to Obama in 2008, giving her wins in Bridgeport and Hartford that nearly matched Mr. Gore’s victory in 2000. It was enough for a clear if modest 5.4-point victory.

It’s a pattern that has repeated itself across the country. Mr. Sanders was routed in the wealthy, liberal parts of New York where recent progressive heroes such as Bill de Blasio or Zephyr Teachout fared well — like the Upper West Side, Greenwich Village and parts of Brooklyn.

In Massachusetts, Mr. Sanders lost the affluent, liberal voters in the Boston area, and he might well lose the Bay Area, another enclave of the wealthy and liberal.

This is the first time since 1992 that there’s been a real split between the progressive left and affluent liberals in a Democratic primary. In that race, an iconoclastic outsider, Mr. Brown, excelled among liberals in places like Ann Arbor, Mich., with a progressive message (including opposition to trade agreements), while a more technocratic candidate, Paul Tsongas, won in wealthy liberal areas like Montgomery County, Md., which includes many suburbs northwest of Washington. Bill Clinton easily prevailed over a divided left-liberal wing of the party with strong support among working-class white Democrats and black voters.

Why did affluent liberals support Mrs. Clinton?

But the left might have a better opportunity to reassemble the left-liberal coalition with a different progressive candidate if the problem were Sanders, not his views.

Equally important to the future of progressives in the Democratic Party is Sanders’ strength in the white working-class areas where Bradley, Obama, and both Brown and Tsongas faltered. It was Sanders’ strength among these voters that let him stay fairly competitive, even though he lost half of the traditional left-liberal coalition.

Sanders won white voters without a college degree by a double-digit margin in Connecticut, as he did in Maryland, Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Illinois, Oklahoma, Indiana, Vermont and Michigan. He probably did so in Rhode Island as well (no exit polls were conducted there).

Outside the South, Clinton probably won white voters without a college degree only in Ohio (the exit polls there show she prevailed with that group by 1 percentage point).

One possible explanation, again, is policy. Income inequality has become a vastly more important issue to Democrats since the Great Recession, and it is reasonable to assume that white working-class Democrats might be especially drawn to the issue. This is the best case for the progressive left; it would mean that a future progressive populist could count on similar levels of support with a strong, class-oriented message.

The evidence for this view is somewhat mixed. According a compilation of exit polls, about 40 percent of white voters without a college degree wanted more liberal policies than those of Obama, and Sanders won these voters handily. The highest number was in Vermont, where 46 percent of white voters without a degree wanted more liberal policies than Obama’s.

That is a big bloc that progressives can count on in the future, but it is not a majority, and it is less than Sanders’ share of white voters without a degree. That is in part because Sanders also won among those white working-class voters who wanted less liberal policies than those of Obama, a fact that makes Sanders look as much like a protest vote against Clinton as the harbinger of a new Democratic socialism.

According to exit poll data, liberals represented a majority of white Democrats without a college degree in nearly every primary contest. It is a huge change from just a decade or two ago, when so many white working-class Democrats were conservative. Clinton tended to win “moderate” white voters without college degrees in these states, but she lost among the self-described liberals.

A lot of this is a generational divide. Clinton won among white voters without a college degree who were older than 30, but she was pummeled among those who were younger.

Whether Clinton was so weak among young white voters because of her weaknesses or the appeal of Sanders’ policy message will probably decide whether the “Sanders Coalition” can be replicated in a future Democratic primary.

The exit polls, again, send a mixed message. About half of young white voters did not think Clinton was liberal enough, or they wanted policies that were more liberal than Obama’s. But Sanders also won among those younger voters who thought Clinton and Obama were liberal enough; her weakness might have had as much (or more) to do with questions about ethical governance as about policy.

One possibility is simple class politics: Mr. Sanders’s class-oriented message didn’t resonate among this group. If true, a candidate of the progressive left would struggle to reunite the left-liberal coalition against an establishment challenger in future Democratic primaries.

But the left might have a better opportunity to reassemble the left-liberal coalition with a different progressive candidate if the problem were Sanders, not his views.

Equally important to the future of progressives in the Democratic Party is Sanders’ strength in the white working-class areas where Bradley, Obama, and both Brown and Tsongas faltered. It was Sanders’ strength among these voters that let him stay fairly competitive, even though he lost half of the traditional left-liberal coalition.

Sanders won white voters without a college degree by a double-digit margin in Connecticut, as he did in Maryland, Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Illinois, Oklahoma, Indiana, Vermont and Michigan. He probably did so in Rhode Island as well (no exit polls were conducted there).

Outside the South, Clinton probably won white voters without a college degree only in Ohio (the exit polls there show she prevailed with that group by 1 percentage point).

One possible explanation, again, is policy. Income inequality has become a vastly more important issue to Democrats since the Great Recession, and it is reasonable to assume that white working-class Democrats might be especially drawn to the issue. This is the best case for the progressive left; it would mean that a future progressive populist could count on similar levels of support with a strong, class-oriented message.

The evidence for this view is somewhat mixed. According a compilation of exit polls, about 40 percent of white voters without a college degree wanted more liberal policies than those of Obama, and Sanders won these voters handily. The highest number was in Vermont, where 46 percent of white voters without a degree wanted more liberal policies than Obama’s.

That is a big bloc that progressives can count on in the future, but it is not a majority, and it is less than Sanders’ share of white voters without a degree. That is in part because Sanders also won among those white working-class voters who wanted less liberal policies than those of Obama, a fact that makes Sanders look as much like a protest vote against Clinton as the harbinger of a new Democratic socialism.

According to exit poll data, liberals represented a majority of white Democrats without a college degree in nearly every primary contest. It is a huge change from just a decade or two ago, when so many white working-class Democrats were conservative. Clinton tended to win “moderate” white voters without college degrees in these states, but she lost among the self-described liberals.

A lot of this is a generational divide. Clinton won among white voters without a college degree who were older than 30, but she was pummeled among those who were younger.

Whether Clinton was so weak among young white voters because of her weaknesses or the appeal of Sanders’ policy message will probably decide whether the “Sanders Coalition” can be replicated in a future Democratic primary.

The exit polls, again, send a mixed message. About half of young white voters did not think Clinton was liberal enough, or they wanted policies that were more liberal than Obama’s. But Sanders also won among those younger voters who thought Clinton and Obama were liberal enough; her weakness might have had as much (or more) to do with questions about ethical governance as about policy.

The Sanders-Clinton race reversed this map. Clinton lost almost all of the white, working-class areas of rural eastern Connecticut to Sanders, even though she had won most of it in 2008, as Gore had in 2000. But she beat Sanders by huge margins in the affluent parts of western Connecticut where Obama and Bradley fared well. She won back the nonwhite voters she lost to Obama in 2008, giving her wins in Bridgeport and Hartford that nearly matched Gore’s victory in 2000. It was enough for a clear if modest 5.4-point victory.

Hartford

New Haven

Bridgeport

Clinton vs. Sanders, 2016

Clinton stronger

Sanders stronger

Hartford

New Haven

Bridgeport

Clinton vs. Obama, 2008

Clinton stronger

Obama stronger

Hartford

New Haven

Bridgeport

Gore v. Bradley, 2000

Gore stronger

Bradley stronger

By The New York Times
But the left might have a better opportunity to reassemble the left-liberal coalition with a different progressive candidate if the problem were Mr. Sanders, not his views. (Anecdotally, I run into a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters who supported Mr. Obama in 2008 and say they would have supported

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

Bernie v. Hillary

Hillary has the billionaires and the Wall Street Hawks
but Bernie HAS THE PEOPLE! ~ UNRULY HEARTS

150706_POL_Sanders.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2

POLITICO’s coverage of the Democratic presidential primary.

Sanders rips closed party primaries in New York: ‘That’s wrong’

By Nolan D. McCaskill

04/19/16 11:56 AM EDT

It’s wrong that independents are unable to vote in New York’s primary, Bernie Sanders said Tuesday.

“I’m trying to do everything I can to get my vote casted for him,” a male supporter told reporters in New York while gesturing toward Sanders. “I can sign a court order and an affidavit and whatever I need to do, and I’m going to do that, but it shouldn’t be this hard to vote.”

“No, it should not be,” Sanders replied. “Today, 3 million people in the state of New York who are independents have lost their right to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary. That’s wrong.”

According to voter enrollment data from the New York State Board of Elections, more than 3 million voters are registered outside of the Republican and Democratic parties, barring them from voting in the state’s closed primary.

“You’re paying for this election. It’s administered by the state,” Sanders told the supporter. “You have a right to vote. And that’s a very unfortunate thing, which I hope will change in the future. Thanks so much for your support.”

A group of New Yorkers filed suit Monday asking for an emergency declaratory judgment to open New York’s primary up to all registered voters in the state. Some voters allege that their party affiliations were unknowingly altered, preventing them from casting their ballots Tuesday.
Authors:

Nolan D. McCaskill
nmccaskill@politico.com
@NolanDMcCaskill

This story tagged under:

Democrats New York Primaries Bernie Sanders Primary 2016 Elections Bernie Sanders 2016